Henderson v Hon. Moskowitz/Sullivan

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Counsel for Mr. Henderson argued that the plaintiff sued him personally in Arizona solely to avoid litigating in China, as required by the forum selection clause agreed upon with the corporate defendant, Nomad.
2. Mr. Wilinczyk contended that Mr. Henderson should be able to enforce the forum selection clause defensively under alternative estoppel theories because the allegations against him are identical to those against the company.
3. Counsel for Robert Sullivan argued that Arizona jurisprudence has not adopted the closely related party doctrine for forum selection clauses and that existing contract law avenues, such as alter ego or agency, are sufficient to bind non-signatories.
4. Ms. Hoffman distinguished arbitration from forum selection clauses, noting that while there is a strong public policy favoring arbitration under the Arizona Arbitration Act, forum selection clauses are purely creatures of contract without such legislative backing.
5. The court expressed concern that allowing non-signatories to enforce forum selection clauses might encourage plaintiffs to add corporate officers to lawsuits specifically to nullify inconvenient forum selection provisions.
6. Ms. Hoffman urged the court to apply any new doctrine prospectively rather than retroactively, arguing that adopting it now would override clear precedent and upset parties' expectations based on existing law.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT39M56S · Captions available